From: Kevin Sopp (baraclese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-17 16:49:50
On 9/17/06, Bruno Martínez <br1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think intrusive containers would be useful. There was a separate
> initiative that added intrusiveness to the multi index library. I think
> it would be better to fold the many STL remakes that are popping up
> (pointer containers, intrusive containers/shared mem containers) into
> multi index than repeat the effort everywhere. Case in point: what do I
> do if I need a pointer-sharedmem-bimap?
I'm working on an intrusive dynamic multi-index container.
I've got some code working which allows me to add sequential views
at runtime. I wondered as well if it was possible to share code for common
operations in these containers. AFAIK pointer containers are just adaptors
over standard containers.
On the subject of the intrusive containers by Olaf. I had some email
conversation with him in january and gave him my opinion and offered
to help, however as it turned out I did not have enough time. I suggest
bringing the containers into the intrusive namespace and drop the i prefix.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk